The County Board finally has received the billing from Joe Phebus for the legal work he's done since he took on the litigation surrounding the construction problems at the nursing home. The bill to date is about $150,000. About $10,000 of that was spent in a failed effort to move the HVAC issue from arbitration to the court system.
To put this in context, the mold at the nursing home was discovered over three years ago and so the County has been paying on these problems for over three years. Our costs on these problems exceed $3 million. We've recovered approximately $100,000. I don't have the exact cost of litigation so far, but I believe that it exceeds $300,000.
Further, I think the lengthy battle is convincing various board members that our case is not quite as sound as they have been led to believe. Most people feel that there will be no resolution to this issue until after the November election, comfortably placing a bad settlement or arbitration finding past the elections of both Rietz and Weibel.
Of course, while the Phebus billing gives us a best case scenario on our costs, it doesn't take into account the big loophole in the contract which Rietz negotiated that basically sets no limit on what she can pay Phebus.
There are additional bills for the law firm of Duane Morris, who continues to represent the County in front of the health facilities planning board, including in defense of our failure to comply by the rules that Duane Morris failed to adequately advise us about.
Mark, this sounds more like that kind of wheeling and dealing we see in Chicago and Cook County all of the time. This money could be used to help directly with the nursing home, What is that legal term Habeus Corpus?? sic? anyway the way things are going there soon will not be a body left,ie, the nursing home itself.
The mold problem is even more indefensible than the HVAC problem. The County approved the use of the suspect materials under the agreement that it would be "cleaned up". There were no specifications as the the degree or method or ultimate acceptable amount of cleaning necessary.
This agreement was primarily made in an attempt to avoid any delays in construction. Any money spent on the matter is absolutely wasted.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
The contractor told them they would get the mold cleaned up, "Trust Me", we all know what that translates to!!!!
Gregg,
I am not sure that is what the contractor said, but it is absolutely irresponsible for the County to entertain any such agreement without contract modifications according the terms of the contract and revisions to describe the method, amount, quality, etc. of that clean up, including any monetary adjustments or limitations.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield
The wood was stored outside in the weather, the contract specified if it was stored outside it was to be covered with a weatherproof material. It was not and the contractor used it, and the construction management company allowed it, they should have to remove it and reinstall the proper material, It would be hard to make up a story as ridiculious as what has and is now going on with the CCNH!!
"should have to remove it and reinstall the proper material,"
Nope, see the Coho Pipe case - ancient first-year law student case...
I'm not aware of the requirements for storage of the wood when it arrived on site. but if you read the lawsuit that otto baum filed, you'll see why they think they aren't liable.
http://www.illinipundit.com/2008/04/09/otto-baum-suing-pkd
As to whether the County should have rejected the wood, the answer is of course that they should have. They had the right to. And the responsibility falls on the county administration probably.
http://www.illinipundit.com/2006/10/21/county-ok%2526%2523039%3Bd-use-faulty-wood
Mark,
Yep, reject.
Who I am, is who I want to be...
Rex Bradfield